It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

bingidingi wrote: post #195

throwaway894345 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's about the ubiquity in fiction. If every police box in fiction was a time machine, it stands to reason someone may be confused when encountering a real police box for the first time. This is the silliest thing I've ever heard, and not every fictional red cross symbol is a threat anyway. This whole thing seems at least as ridiculous as the moral panic about violent video games in the early 2000s, except that I k…

Asking works of fiction to stop using a symbol doesn't seem at all like a moral panic to me. What they're saying is "this symbol has a specific meaning, and it's important to us that it's not diluted." They're not calling for video games to be banned or even re-labeled, they're just trying to prevent the red cross from losing the intended meaning (which comes with an international treaty intended to protect aid worke…

Post by throwaway894345 » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

bingidingi wrote: post #195

throwaway894345 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's about the ubiquity in fiction. If every police box in fiction was a time machine, it stands to reason someone may be confused when encountering a real police box for the first time. This is the silliest thing I've ever heard, and not every fictional red cross symbol is a threat anyway. This whole thing seems at least as ridiculous as the moral panic about violent video games in the early 2000s, except that I k…

Asking works of fiction to stop using a symbol doesn't seem at all like a moral panic to me. What they're saying is "this symbol has a specific meaning, and it's important to us that it's not diluted." They're not calling for video games to be banned or even re-labeled, they're just trying to prevent the red cross from losing the intended meaning (which comes with an international treaty intended to protect aid worke…

Post by tomc1985 » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 10:01 PM UTC

kipchak wrote: post #145

tyingq wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where I'm confused. I see the issue with products appropriating it as a sort of brand hijacking...like the example of a first aid kit with a red cross. But tv, movies, games, etc, just showing an accurate representation of real life, within the media itself seems...normal. I think if they have to, the least confusing thing would be a red square with a white cross inside it. That's what a lot of first aid kits…

To complicate things one further layer down, what about games (Escape From Tarkov's AFAK for example) having products in them that do hijack the red cross, which is somewhat common in real life.

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 10:05 PM UTC

bingidingi wrote: post #204

threatofrain wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have already replied to you to let you know that various major European countries use the green cross to refer to a generic pharmacy. You already acknowledge this elsewhere, and you've also already acknowledged that there's special meaning to the red cross as opposed to merely referring to pharmacies. I don't know what you're doing excluding Asia or the USA either, while saying > A green cross would confuse no…

Using the green cross for a pharmacy supports the suggested use as a generic symbol for health... I didn't exclude Asia, I stated that my experience there is more limited than the continents I listed. The US isn't a reliable authority on any international standards. If you started up a new video game and the health packs had green crosses instead of red ones, would you be confused?

Post by M2Ys4U » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 10:27 PM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #167

dfdz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this quotation best summarizes the article "When someone misuses the red cross,(the video game industry being just one of many), we seek their cooperation in ending the unauthorized use" The red cross is a protect trademark so this seems reasonable.

There needs to be some minimum complexity for a trademark. A cross is one of the most common human symbols. It's ridiculous to attempt to police the world for the use of it in a certain color. I'd like to see how much they spend on this, and will reconsider donating to the red cross in the future if they continue this foolhardy errand.